Ehrke v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The defendants are presumed to have had knowledge of the contents of the chattel mortgage, and if by the description there given, aided by inquiries which it would naturally suggest, the cattle could have been identified, the description would have been sufficient to bind them. (Waggoner v. Oursler, 54 Kan. 141 , 37 Pac. 973 ; Rudolph v. Commission Co., 76 Kan. 789 , 92 Pac. 1103 .) A partial misdescription does not invalidate the mortgage (King v. Aultman & Co., 24 Kan. 246 ), but in determining whether a third party, aided by inquiries suggested by the mortgage, could have identified the property, tire whole description is to be taken into consideration. The suggestion which indicates the line of inquiry must come from the mortgage itself, and cannot rest alone in the minds of the mortgagor and mortgagee.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. International Harvester Co. v. Champlin Refining Co.